Delve a little bit further into the trick previously analyzed. When an image is cooked up into another image, the opposite is true. That is, image processing from 3-c to 2-c is possible, and vice-versa from 2-c to 3-c.

If there were only two images, could you guess which is which? You can’t, I bet. Though you may say what is the point of delving it, but let’s see a faked image a little bit closer. It begins to seem like an O-sign mouth of an anglerfish, isn’t it?

Did you notice that each left edge of images (3-a, 3-b) without mouths were trimmed to look more real?

Supplementary Consideration: The original image 2-c was possibly cooked up to 3-c, and then for making mouths, each left edge of 3-b and 3-a was cut off in an artful way. Is that so?

Glossary: Japanese word ‘捏る’with an original meaning of ‘Kone-ru’ (v. pug in English) in kun reading, however, is more popularly pronounced ‘Tuku-ru’ or ‘Netsu-ru’ in these days.

The article above reported a role for complement C1q in promoting age-related phenotypes. Since publication, we have noticed that the upper panels shown inFigure 7F were incorrectly selected and labeled. The upper-right panel portrayed an image from aged C1qKO mice, not aged wild-type mice treated with M241, as originally labeled. The upper-left panel was correctly labeled as aged wild-type mice treated with PBS, but the magnification of both images in the top panels was incorrectly labeled and did not match the magnification of the bottom two panels. The corrected figure, with the upper-left panel now portraying an image from aged wild-type mice treated with PBS and the upper-right panel portraying an image from aged wild-type mice treated with M241, both taken with a 4× magnification (scale bars, 150 μm), is shown on the following page. We sincerely apologize for these mistakes and emphasize that the correction of these errors does not impact our conclusions

Erratum in

In this Letter, several images were mistakenly switched or duplicated during preparation of the artwork. In Figs 1f and 2a, the sham-operated Dnase2a−/− and TAC-operated Dnase2a+/+ mice panels were switched. In Fig. 4d, the panel showing CD3 staining for ODN2088 control-treated TAC-operated Dnase2a+/+ mice (now shown correctly as black-bordered panel in Fig. 1 below) is a duplicate of that showing Ly6G staining for ODN2088-treated TAC-operated Dnase2a−/− mice. The panel showing CD45 staining for ODN2088-treated TAC-operated Dnase2a+/+ (now shown correctly as blue-bordered panel in Fig. 1 below) was prepared from the original picture of ODN2088 control-treated TAC-operated Dnase2a+/+. In Supplementary Fig. 4c, sham-operatedDnase2a−/− and TAC-operated Dnase2a+/+ mice panels were switched. Finally, in Supplementary Fig. 10d, the panels showing CD3 and Ly6G staining for sham-operated Tlr9+/+ mice were switched. These corrections do not alter any of the conclusions of this Letter, and the authors apologize for any confusion these errors may have caused.